Hi Kalle/Javier, > From: Javier Martinez Canillas [mailto:jav...@osg.samsung.com] > Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 8:07 PM > To: Kalle Valo > Cc: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; Julian Calaby; Shengzhen Li; Enric > Balletbo i Serra; Amitkumar Karwar; netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux- > wirel...@vger.kernel.org; Nishant Sarmukadam > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] mwifiex: move .get_tx_power logic to station > ioctl file > > Hello Kalle, > > On 06/10/2016 10:30 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: > > Javier Martinez Canillas <jav...@osg.samsung.com> writes: > > > >> From: Shengzhen Li <s...@marvell.com> > >> > >> Most cfg80211 operations are just a wrappers to functions defined in > >> the sta_ioctl.c file, so for consistency move the .get_tx_power logic > there. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Shengzhen Li <s...@marvell.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Amitkumar Karwar <akar...@marvell.com> > >> [javier: update the subject line and commit message] > >> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <jav...@osg.samsung.com> > > > > [...] > > > >> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/cfg80211.c > >> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/cfg80211.c > >> @@ -385,18 +385,10 @@ mwifiex_cfg80211_get_tx_power(struct wiphy > *wiphy, > >> int *dbm) > >> { > >> struct mwifiex_adapter *adapter = > mwifiex_cfg80211_get_adapter(wiphy); > >> - struct mwifiex_private *priv = mwifiex_get_priv(adapter, > >> - MWIFIEX_BSS_ROLE_ANY); > >> - int ret = mwifiex_send_cmd(priv, HostCmd_CMD_RF_TX_PWR, > >> - HostCmd_ACT_GEN_GET, 0, NULL, true); > >> - > >> - if (ret < 0) > >> - return ret; > >> - > >> - /* tx_power_level is set in HostCmd_CMD_RF_TX_PWR command handler > */ > >> - *dbm = priv->tx_power_level; > >> + struct mwifiex_private *priv; > >> > >> - return 0; > >> + priv = mwifiex_get_priv(adapter, MWIFIEX_BSS_ROLE_ANY); > >> + return mwifiex_get_tx_power(priv, dbm); > >> } > > > > So in patch 1 you added the patch and in patch 2 you move it to a > > different location? That doesn't make any sense, can't you just fold > > the two patches into one so that the function is added only once. > > > > I posted this patch in v1 but then Amitkumar shared his patch with me > that was very similar to mine, only that the logic was in a different > location. > > So I included his delta as a separate patch to try keeping attribution > as best as possible. >
This patch (2/3) is only for code rearrangement and adds an unnecessary wrapper function. We can simply drop the patch. Regards, Amitkumar
